Optimizing hydrological consistency by incorporating hydrological signatures into model calibration objectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The simulated outcome of a calibrated hydrologic model should be hydrologically consistent with the measured response data. Hydrologic modelers typically calibrate models to optimize residual‐based goodness‐of‐fit measures, e.g., the Nash‐Sutcliffe efficiency measure, and then evaluate the obtained results with respect to hydrological signatures, e.g., the flow duration curve indices. The literature indicates that the consideration of a large number of hydrologic signatures has not been addressed in a full multiobjective optimization context. This research develops a model calibration methodology to achieve hydrological consistency using goodness‐of‐fit measures, many hydrological signatures, as well as a level of acceptability for each signature. The proposed framework relies on a scoring method that transforms any hydrological signature to a calibration objective. These scores are used to develop the hydrological consistency metric, which is maximized to obtain hydrologically consistent parameter sets during calibration. This consistency metric is implemented in different signature‐based calibration formulations that adapt the sampling according to hydrologic signature values. These formulations are compared with the traditional formulations found in the literature for seven case studies. The results reveal that Pareto dominance‐based multiobjective optimization yields the highest level of consistency among all formulations. Furthermore, it is found that the choice of optimization algorithms does not affect the findings of this research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".